Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1005396)	3/10/2017 4:10:02 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576648

anonymous lying asshole troll ratie, where is the book pdf and what in that book disputes the simple statements below. your fake news and fake science links are all bla bla bullshit. You are a science ignoramus and cannot comprehend anything you read in the first place. You insult a respected scientist, you are afraid to do it publicly. you are a cowardly anonymous lying asshole troll. That is all you will ever be. The cover of a book is your call to authority and nothing in that book disputes the simple statements below. and the bla bla bla below it is not from the phony use of a cover to imply the bla bla below it is science. triple down and counting anonymous lying asshole troll non response. law judges are your scientific call to authority. Once again you repeat history. So ratie's law judges consider the opinions of the IPCC bogus. OK.... ratie your post is basically anonymous lying asshole troll non response. Or just More ratie bla bla bla, I do not see any contradiction of the Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences assertions below. just bla bla bla So what did the 10 billion ratie only climate experts all say... bla bla bla. ratie I've done real engineering and science with measured prediction, calibration and verification. Here is my unredacted RESUME. Where have you flipped burger for decades. watman.com As I said. ratie you read the bobsy twins and I simply stick with law judges are your scientific call to authority. Once again you repeat history. So ratie's law judges consider the opinions of the IPCC bogus. OK.... ratie your post is basically anonymous lying asshole troll non response. Or just More ratie bla bla bla, I do not see any contradiction of the Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences assertions below. just bla bla bla So what did the 10 billion ratie only climate experts all say... bla bla bla. ratie I've done real engineering and science with measured prediction, calibration and verification. Here is my unredacted RESUME. Where have you flipped burger for decades. watman.com As I said. ratie you read the bobsy twins and I simply stick with Richard S. Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences We note that: The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming, It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2, Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed, The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments, Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide, Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (1005396)	3/10/2017 4:10:03 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 1576648

Shell Oil’s Stark Climate Change Warning from….1991… climatecrocks.com Oil giant Shell has spent millions of dollars lobbying against measures that would protect the planet from climate catastrophe. But thanks to a film recently obtained by The Correspondent, it’s now clear that their position wasn’t born of ignorance. Shell knows that fossil fuels put us all at risk – in fact, they’ve known for over a quarter of a century. Climate of Concern, a 1991 educational film produced by Shell, warned that the company’s own product could lead to extreme weather, floods, famines, and climate refugees, and noted that the reality of climate change was “endorsed by a uniquely broad consensus of scientists.” thecorrespondent.com